Skip to main content

About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
is the in recess for their weekly party caucuses. they will return at 2:15 for more work on then line sales tax bill. a motion to proceed on the bill could come tomorrow unless an agreement is reached today. learn more about your senators with c-span's 2013 congressional direct at this. it is available to order online. a handy guide to the current congress. has information about each member of the hoist and senate. it includes contact information, district maps and committee asassignments. the directory is 12.95 plus shipping and handling and order online. a short time ago we spoke with a capitol hill reporter with the latest on the legislation the senate is debating today on the internet sales tax. gautham nagesh from roll call on capitol hill. what is the purpose of this internet sales bill? >> it would require states online retailers, charge sales tax and collect and remit them when consumers make a purchase online. that includes retailers not within their own state. >> who are some of the bill's supporters and why do some of them say it will level the playing field for retailers? >> well, t
paying fines, back taxes, that is not amnesty or not nothing. a lots of money. some people may be so rich they think a couple thousand dollars is nothing, but it is not for most people. with earned legal status, you see it in the center-right movement. i see the business community, the small businesses in particular, this is not a fortune 500 issue. farmers and dairymen and ranchers around the country have been explaining that they need this. you see this with the various communities. communities ofs faith are focused on this and saying that we need to move forward on this. from the center-right perspective in terms of the reagan republicans and conservatives, absolutely, yes. it is very powerful. the arguments against it are malice in the left and do not carry a lots of weight with reagan republicans. what are the things i used in my testimony with the nine mins of -- nine myths of immigration, this is back in the 1980 posturing reagan's presidency. it walks through all the things you hear from people who did not like the irish and did not like the jews and did not like the asians and al
possessed in this country? and who would pay for it? would gun owners be subject to still more fees or taxes for exercising their second amendment rights? who would have access to the so-called registry? would the public know who owns guns and who does not? who would ensure that this sensitive information is protected and not used for political purposes, and how? we do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know that such restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy. we should not start down this dangerous road. what should we do instead? i have a few suggestions. instead of undermining the second amendment, mr. president, congress should focus its attention on three areas. first, i believe that robust prosecution of violent criminals is the best deterrent for violent crime. prosecutors should punish to the fullest extent of the law individuals who misuse guns, knives or anything else to commit violent crimes. there should be no leniency, mr. president, what ever for the commission of such crimes. secondly, we should examine and address any deficiencies -- and we have them -- i
every bill is too big and every deal tends to be today. so for example, like on tax reform, tomorrow i would lower the income tax. if we can compromise on the number i would lower it to 17% tomorrow. just do it. i don't care if people predicted less revenue, less revenue means more revenue in economy. if you in an enormous boost to ththe con and we like under kennedy, like under coolidge and like under reagan when you reduced rates, sometimes you get more revenue. that is because the deal is to be. same with immigration. we make it harder on ourselves are the debt commission, we make it a lot harder to find a deal when it has a thousand moving parts but i think we should go with the things we agree on and boom, boom, boom. it's why the rate -- that's why the public is so upset with us. all the stuff we agree on we won't pass because we say that will be the sweeter for the bigger deal. which we never seem to be able to get to one that break up all these big deals into smaller deals? i tried to pass the stand these a, science and technology these is expanding those. i tried to pass it by
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)